A Rational Approach to the Prophethood of Muhammad

It is generally well-known that a person who claims prophethood is either someone of the best or the worst of mankind, and these two extremes can never be confused. This is true indeed, due to the fact that he is either a truthful Prophet of God, thus it is accepted that he should be one of the best and most perfect person, an example par excellence. Or, if he is a liar against God — and this is the most terrible of lies — there he is one of the worst and most wicked person to ever walk the earth. This big difference is too great to be missed by any lay person, let alone smart and intelligent individuals. It is truly a very huge difference, indeed!

How could someone confuse a prophet who has reached the highest level of truthfulness, honesty and morality — as opposed to a liar against God who has reached the lowest level of wickedness and immorality? How could someone not be able to distinguish between these two extremes?

The behavior and mannerisms of a person tells someone whether he is a truthful person or a habitual liar. This can be known from his habitual life and daily manners especially with long companionship and experiencing interaction with the individual in question. If someone is truthful all the time, this is clearly recognized. And if he sometimes tells lies, this is also quickly recognized. This is something we frequently experience in our daily life; if anyone lived amongst a certain society for a long time, the members of this society can easily tell whether this one is truthful or not. People who are close to a certain person for a long time are able to tell whether this person habitually lies or not, especially in major issues.

Those who were close to Prophet Muhammad(P) had a solid belief that he is a truthful person that had never lied in his entire life. Even those who disbelieved in his Prophethood did not deny this fact. This is evident in the following report in Sahih Muslim:

It is reported on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that when this verse was revealed:” And warn thy nearest kindred” (and thy group of selected people among them) the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) set off till he climbed Safa’ and called loudly: Be on your guard! They said: Who is it calling aloud? They said: Muhammad. They gathered round him, and he said: O sons of so and so, O sons of so and so, O sons of ‘Abd Manaf, O sons of ‘Abd al-Muttalib, and they gathered around him. He (the Apostle) said: If I were to inform you that there were horsemen emerging out of the foot of this mountain, would you believe me? They said: We have not experienced any lie from you. He said: Well, I am a warner to you before a severe torment. He (the narrator) said that Abu Lahab then said: Destruction to you! Is it for this you have gathered us? He (the Holy Prophet) then stood up, and this verse was revealed:” Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and he indeed perished” (cxi. 1). A’mash recited this to the end of the Sura.1

Our witness in this report is the statement by the Prophet’s own kin: “We have not experienced any lie from you”, this means that his truthfulness was something very apparent and well known to them. Also, it does demonstrate that his truthfulness was agreed upon amongst them, for no one objected to this statement despite the fact that it was said in the open where all people were present. In fact, they refused his call and disbelieved in his Prophethood, but they did not belie his truthfulness, preferring instead to abuse him.

In their response to his call, they actually preferred abusing him to belying him!

One should put in consideration that Muhammad(P) was born, grew up, lived and married before the Message in the midst of his people, so they should be the best judge on his manners especially truthfulness. Despite the fact that many of them did not follow him — and rather, opposed him — they have all agreed that they never heard a single lie from him.

Another proof of this fact is given in the long report of Abu Sufyan and Heraclius when the latter asked the former: “Have you ever accused him of telling lies before his claim (to be a prophet)?” Abu Sufyan answered: “No.”2 This event took place before Abu Sufyan embraced Islam. The comment of Heraclius regarding Abu Sufyan’s reply is interesting, he further said: “I further asked whether he was ever accused of telling lies before he said what he said, and your reply was in the negative. So I wonder how a person who never told a lie about others could ever tell a lie about Allah?”3

This brings us to a discussion on Argument of Priority.

Argument of Priority is one form of logical arguments formulated by Muslim scholars. An example of this type of argument is that if Sam is able to carry five kilograms of any material, then it is assumed that prior to that he is able to carry only one kilogram of the same material. Yes, it is not mentioned in the first statement that Sam can carry one kilogram — it is only stated that he could carry five — but this logical argument leads us to conclude that as long as he could carry five kilograms, then he is able to carry one kilogram as well.

This logical argument was employed by Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah in his argument that if man has the attributes of seeing, hearing and speaking, then it is prior of God who created man to attain these attributes.4

In fact, this logical argument is derived from the Noble Qur’an; the Qur’an employs it to answer those who deny the belief in Resurrection and the Hereafter, it answers them that it is God who was able to create man from nothing is thus also able to revive man again in the Last Day, for if God is able to create man from nothing, it is of course logical to accept that prior to that He would be able to revive him again from death.5

More of such examples are available in the Qur’an, but we will not be referring to those examples in this article.

Back to our discussion on the truthfulness of Prophet Muhammad(P), we find that Heraclius employed the Argument of Priority as proof of Muhammad’s prophethood; he said: “how could a person who never told a lie about others ever tell a lie about Allah?”

This is a true argument indeed; for if someone refrains from telling lies to others in worldly matters, it is of course acceptable to admit that prior to that he would not to tell lies against God. If telling lies was never one of his attributes — in fact, to the contrary, people had never heard of any lie coming from him — and he abstains from lying to people, then his abstaining from telling lies against God is prior. In fact, when one examines the biography of Prophet Muhammad(P), he will find that his contemporaries had never accused him of being a liar in his claim to be a Prophet of God. Yes, they had accused him of being a sorcerer, a poet, a madman or someone possessed, but they had never accused him of lying. The Qur’an also tells that they do not really belie him, they rather deny and reject Signs of Allah.6

This contradictory attitude of the disbelievers was the reason why they deserved God’s punishment in the end; they knew that Muhammad(P) was a truthful person and that he never told a lie. However, they disbelieved in him and vigorously rejected his Message. On the contrary, the Believers sincerely believed in him because they knew that he was not a liar — especially those who were intimate with his life, people in the likes of his wife Khadijah (R) and his Companions Abu Bakr (R), Uthman (R) and Umar (R).

Which position will you choose for yourself? Will you choose the position of that of the believers or the position of the disbelievers, who were destroyed in the end?

Post navigation

1 Comment

This is an excellent essay. The mentally unstable and abusive missionary Sam Shamoun (SS) gave a silly “reply” to this essay. His entire “reply” was based on a strawman and the rest was incoherent rambling on unrelated topics, ignoring much of the discussion in the essay by “the Terrorist.” I will make a few comments here.

SS failed to comprehend the argument: that the idol worshippers acknowledged Muhammed (P) as a truthful, honest and sincere individual. But they only made accusations when he (P) asked them to accept him (P) as God’s prophet. Therefore, there was an inconsistency in their position. Muhammed (P) was not accused or suspected of telling lies in any concievable matter before he (P) began preaching Islam. His (P) honesty was publicly acknowledged. It was only later, once he (P) had declared himself (P) as a prophet, that the unbelievers began to make a range of accusations at Muhammed (P), accusing him (P) of being a magician, madman, etc. SS completely missed this. To quote “the Terrorist”:

“This contradictory attitude of the disbelievers was the reason why they deserved God’s punishment in the end; they knew that Muhammad (P) was a truthful person and that he never told a lie. However, they disbelieved in him and vigorously rejected his Message”

SS presents the usual lame claims to deny the prophethood of Muhammed (P). He says that Muhammed (P) did not perform miracles and that Prophets are accompanied by miracles. But these claims are false. There is a strong scholarly concensus that Muhammed (P) did do miracles. Second, miracles are by themselves no proof of prophethood because false prophets can also do “miracles.” Third, John the Baptist did not perform any miracles as far as I can tell. Yet he was a prophet.

The really comical part is SS’s rather silly mention of reports where some sahaba asked Muhammed’s (P) permission to tell a lie (Muhammad ibn Maslama and Al-Hajjaj ibn Ilat) in specific circumstances. SS wishes to conclude that Muhammed (P) allowed telling lies whenever a person wanted to do so. His desire is to make Islam into this “bad” religion which openly peaches its adherents to tell lies whenever they feel like it. But one wonders if this was the case, then why did these individuals need to take Muhammed’s (P) permission in the first place? Surely this indicates the opposite: that the act of lying was viewed as unacceptable, and hence the need to refer to Muhammed (P) to seek his permission. This (Muhammad ibn Maslama) is, in fact, a specific case in a WAR situation and SS foolishly makes a hasty generalization on its basis. In a war scenario, one HAS TO deceive the enemy combatants. This is what ALL ARMIES do, even now. But to use this specific war scenario case to make a generalization and suggest that lying is “acceptable” in “all cases” is foolish to say to least. In Islam lying is a sin. The texts are too numerous to quote which condemn the act of lying, dishonesty and deception. However, in a war, armies have to deceive the opposing armies in order to get an upperhand.

The other comical part is SS’s comparison of lying with the totally unrelated act of dissolution of oaths! And to top it off he brings in takiyah! In case someone does not know, when your life is in grave danger and someone is forcing you to do or say something, threatening to kill you (and/or your loved ones) if you do not comply, and you accept the demands to save your life, this is known as takiyah. Likewise, if there are people who you fear will very likely harm you and the only way to avoid that would be to be “friendly” towards them, then this would be takiyah as well. Takiyah, therefore, is permissable in dire life threatening situations. It is no green signal to tell lies everyday on every conceivable issue. SS has a weird problem with this and he does not explain why takiyah is “wrong.” Perhaps he plans to force a Muslim to convert to Christianity and kill him if he does not, so SS wants to ensure the Muslim *really* converts and does not do so just to save his life from SS? You never know :)

As usual, SS makes another hasty generalization on the basis of this unique and specific permission, which is limited to dire life threatening situation.

This just shows how embarassing SS is for the answering-islam website. I am sure that most Christians are a bit more intelligent and would not be fooled by his, frankly stupid, arguments. I have come across a few christians online who have been brave enough to acknowledge this in private. It is very strange that a person has the ability to apply such silly arguments as a result of his hate and prejudice.

SS produces large amounts of texts in an incoherent manner and hastily hops from one unrelated topic onto another, while all the time either completely ignoring or distorting his opponents arguments.

I think “the Terrorist” can have a marvellous time shredding to pieces SS’s silly tirade and I look forward to his refutation.